Jump to content

Template:Did you know nominations/Inter-Services Intelligence activities in India

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
The following discussion is an archived discussion of the DYK nomination of the article below. Please do not modify this page. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as this nomination's talk page, the article's talk page or Wikipedia talk:Did you know), unless there is consensus to re-open the discussion at this page. No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was: rejected by  — Crisco 1492 (talk) 08:45, 7 July 2012 (UTC)
Stability, possibly neutrality

Inter-Services Intelligence activities in India

[edit]
(
)

Created/expanded by Vibhijain (talk). Self nom at 08:05, 26 June 2012 (UTC)

  • Article is long enough.Hooks seems good and interesting.Aye! ≫TheStrike Σagle≪ 09:42, 27 June 2012 (UTC)
  • Can you please correct the hook to "...that Pakistan's Inter-Services Intelligence agency is accused of supporting Khalistan movement...", the same way this fact is mentioned in the article. Besides the source you have mentioned in the article says this fact a little differently which you might want to look again to correct it. --SMS Talk 21:54, 28 June 2012 (UTC)
  • Please have an another look at the source, it clearly says,"the Inter Services Intelligence (ISI) has supported this organization for a long time". And the offline source clarifies the revenge thing. ♛♚★Vaibhav Jain★♚♛ Talk Email 06:15, 29 June 2012 (UTC)
    Can you please cite here the relevant text from the offline source for us? --SMS Talk 16:24, 29 June 2012 (UTC)
  • You may check it yourself, I have added the link on the article. ♛♚★Vaibhav Jain★♚♛ Talk Email 17:36, 29 June 2012 (UTC)
    Ok now that I have checked it, I think it is a case of source falsification besides the South Asian Terrorism Portal doesn't look like a reliable source. --SMS Talk 17:16, 30 June 2012 (UTC)
  • Could you please explain how is it a case of "source falsification". The source clearly says that it was to take revenge. ♛♚★Vaibhav Jain★♚♛ Talk Email 07:52, 2 July 2012 (UTC)
    The source you have used says: "... the key policy-makers in Pakistan, have a number of incentives to support the Khalistan Movement, either covertly or overtly. These are: To seek revenge against India for its help in creating Bangladesh...", not what you have presented as a fact. --SMS Talk 16:37, 3 July 2012 (UTC)
I have said that only. ♛♚★Vaibhav Jain★♚♛ Talk Email 17:12, 3 July 2012 (UTC)
Incentives do not equal actual support... something like hanging any one who had a motive for the crime without evidence. That is falsification... or WP:SYNTH at the very best. --lTopGunl (talk) 08:02, 5 July 2012 (UTC)
Its a case of WP:IDONTLIKEIT. Jumping in and rejecting the nom will do nothing in your favour. Tell how is this article non neutral. All your concerns have been already addressed. ♛♚★Vaibhav Jain★♚♛ Talk Email 08:21, 5 July 2012 (UTC)
Your comment is only redirected at me and has nothing to do with addressing my objection above. --lTopGunl (talk) 08:24, 5 July 2012 (UTC)
Objection? Everything is sourced. I write what the source says. If it says "alleged", its has been presented as "alleged". If its proven, its presented as proven. ♛♚★Vaibhav Jain★♚♛ Talk Email 08:27, 5 July 2012 (UTC)
Alleged or proven is a debate for later... it isn't even being said in the source SMS pointed out.. that only says there's incentive. --lTopGunl (talk) 08:30, 5 July 2012 (UTC)
  • The did you know nomination looks like an interesting, new fact and meets criteria. I think this can be promoted. 91.203.96.13 (talk) 08:53, 5 July 2012 (UTC)
The fact is not even supposedly new, and does not meet the criteria anyway.. it is not in the source and not to mention neutral. --lTopGunl (talk) 08:59, 5 July 2012 (UTC)
Incentive means "something that motivates". Its clear that "revenge" was one of the reasons or which ISI helped the Khalistan movement. ♛♚★Vaibhav Jain★♚♛ Talk Email 09:13, 5 July 2012 (UTC)
I know what incentive means.. but the source says there was incentive, not that they did it. --lTopGunl (talk) 09:15, 5 July 2012 (UTC)
Other sources have been given which proves that they did it. ♛♚★Vaibhav Jain★♚♛ Talk Email 09:19, 5 July 2012 (UTC)
  • I have looked at arguments of top gun and user:mar4d and have decided to change my mind. I think they have good points. It is our duty to see all facts accurately and correctly. If something is disputed, I do not feel right that we promote. Thank you sirs for opening my eyes and working for neutral encyclopedia! I will like to erase my previous comment and replace with this now. My best wishes ... 91.203.96.13 (talk) 12:27, 5 July 2012 (UTC)
  •  Not done Several reasons why this should not be promoted. Firstly, this very nomination is an Indian point of view, thus featuring it on the main page when there are counter-views to it would be a core violation of WP:NPOV. Since this is an allegation, it is obviously disputed. You want the real story? Here's what academic sources say, regarding the official viewpoint concerning ISI, and to present the other side:

Bernhard Claussen and Horst Mueller in Political socialization of the young in east and west

India has accused Pakistan of interfering in the troubled Punjab, while Pakistan has denied its complicity more vigourously than it is implied by India's suggestion of its existence.

— Bernhard Claussen, Horst Mueller (1990), Political socialization of the young in east and west, p.59

This one by Ganguly discusses India's allegations and of Pakistan rejecting them.

The seperatists had sought to establish the independent Sikh state of Khalistan. India accused Pakistan of supplying the insurgents with money and material, and the Pakistanis denied doing so. The issue gave rise to an Indo-Pakistani militarised standoff, known as Brasstacks, from late 1986 to early 1987.

— Sumit Ganguly, Paul Kapur (Columbia University Press, 2012), India, Pakistan, and the Bomb: Debating Nuclear Stability in South Asia, p.107

Quoting a passage from Sarbjit Johal's book:

Pakistan publicly denied helping Sikh seccesionists and refused to accept India's information. Such claims and counterclaims can be placed in perspective by noting several points. First, no doubt certain Indian and Pakistani officials have taken satisfaction at the troubles in the other country. But there are limits to how far each....

— Sarbjit Johal (Centers for South and Southeast Asia Studies, University of California at Berkeley, 1989), Conflict and integration in Indo-Pakistan relations, p.212

Here is another neutral source which clearly says Pakistan has maintained its stance, despite India's contrary claims:

While India vociferously expressed that Pakistani arms and money was found during the storming of the Golden Temple at Amritsar, Pakistan denied any complicity, and since then has maintained this stance...

— Bertram Bastiampillai (Bandaranaike Centre for International Studies, 1992), India and her South Asian neighbours, p.49

This book by Verinder Grover and Ranjana Arora has the the Prime Minister of India, Indira Gandhi, during whose term the Khalistan movement was at its peak, openly denying that her government blamed Pakistan. This one takes the biscuit and I think there is no room for further comment.

In an interview with BBC, Indian Prime Minister Indira Gandhi, denied that her government had blamed Pakistan for supporting the Sikhs.

— Verinder Grover, Ranjana Arora (1995), Political system in Pakistan: political events in Pakistan, a chronology, p. 623

As can be seen from several notable sources presented above, this very allegation itself is disputed. POV-pushing dustbin material like this has no place when it comes to the main page. DYK facts must be presented uncorrupted and free of an inclination towards a single point of view which is categorically refutable and has been rejected. That is obviously not the case with this DYK. I have not yet fully screened through the main article for this DYK, but I am confident that it most likely has the same problems in its content which are inherent in this nomination. Mar4d (talk) 09:50, 5 July 2012 (UTC)

Sorry but all your hardwork goes into waste. I have provided sources which proves the allegations. Simply tag teaming will do nothing in your favour. ♛♚★Vaibhav Jain★♚♛ Talk Email 09:54, 5 July 2012 (UTC)
Stop commenting on other editors.. see WP:AOBF. The comment clearly disproves it even though I don't see how it was proved in the first place. --lTopGunl (talk) 10:16, 5 July 2012 (UTC)
  • @Vibhijain: Irrelevant and off-topic reply as usual, comment on the content not the contributor for once. The sources I have given are enough to prove that this is an allegation that is widely disputed and the Indian prime minister is denying it too. Sorry, but this DYK is ineligible to be featured, due to WP:SYNTH and factual inaccuracy/falsification issues. Mar4d (talk) 10:30, 5 July 2012 (UTC)
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Template:Did_you_know_nominations/Inter-Services_Intelligence_activities_in_India&oldid=1021915597"